There has been a development over the last 10-15 years or so in the scientific peer reviewed literature that is short circuiting the scientific method.
The scientific method involves developing a hypothesis and then seeking to refute it. If all attempts to discredit the hypothesis fails, we start to accept the proposed theory as being an accurate description of how the real world works.
A useful summary of the scientific method is given on the website sciencebuddies.org.where they list six steps
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
Unfortunately, in recent years papers have been published in the peer reviewed literature that fail to follow these proper steps of scientific investigation. These papers are short circuiting the scientific method.
Specifically, papers that present predictions of the climate decades into the future have proliferated. Just a two recent examples (and there are many others) are
Hu, A., G. A. Meehl, W. Han, and J. Yin (2009), Transient response of the MOC and climate to potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the 21st century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L10707, doi:10.1029/2009GL037998.
Solomon, S. 2009: Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print January 28, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106
Such studies are even reported in the media before the peer reviewed process is completed; e.g. see in the article by Hannad Hoag in the May 27 2009 issue of Nature News Hot times ahead for the Wild West.
These studies are based on models, of which only a portion of which represent basic physics (e.g. the pressure gradient force, advection and the universal gravitational constant), with the remainder of the physics parameterized with tuned engineering code (e.g see).
When I served as Chief Editor of the Monthly Weather Reviews (1981-1985), The Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (1996-2000), and as Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the IUGG for the American Geophysical Union (1993-1996), such papers would never have been accepted.
What the current publication process has evolved into, at the detriment of proper scientific investigation, are the publication of untested (and often untestable) hypotheses. The fourth step in the scientific method “Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment” is bypassed.
This is a main reason that the policy community is being significantly misinformed about the actual status of our understanding of the climate system and the role of humans within it.
Leif,
Thank you again for your links. Having read through these (I would not claim to understand it all) I have seen several possible explanations as to the mechanism for sunspots, and their changes in polarity and progression in latitude. However I feel I am still in the dark over the question of why 11 / 22 year cycles.
The 1902 Agnes M. Clerke quote you include in your own work was of interest –
“It cannot be said that much progress has been made towards the disclosure of the cause, or causes, of the sun-spot cycle. Most thinkers on this difficult subject provide a quasiexplanation of the periodicity through certain assumed vicissitudes affecting internal processes. In all these theories, however, the course of transition is arbitrarily arranged to suit a period, which imposes itself as a fact peremptorily claiming admittance, while obstinately defying explanation”
I also noted in the conclusions of the Babcock 1961 paper -“The model described here is a freely running oscillator that lacks stabilization.”
I have been less than convinced by those proposing changes in angular momentum due to solar oscillation around, well I’ll just call it the SSCM, driving solar cycles. However I wonder if there may be some merit in looking at the more linear changes in acceleration of the solar mass parallel to the 26 Kps motion of the SSCM through the galaxy as a stabilizing or controlling influence on solar cycles.
Would you have any links for papers related to this question?
Per the “Ah Ha!”
My belief is that the right brain sees the whole. The problem and the solution as the Ah Ha! moment. Then communicates that to the left brain that spends the next few years “working out the details” 😉
I’ve had several of these Ah Ha! flashes. Unfortunately, usually about trivial things of not much importance 8-{
But sporadically I’ve had some good ones. Even more unfortunately, most of them are subject either to corporate trade secret, classification, or my proprietary trade system; so I can’t really share them! Drat.
But the Ah Ha! is typically visual, all at once, and a complete package in non-linear form: And that is all right brain stuff. While the “scientific method” as presented (and as all “methods” seem to be..) is a linear rule based thing: fundamentally all left brain stuff…
And that is why the reality of science never does quite match the theory / model of the scientific method … because only the left brain can write the “list of steps” and the right brain doesn’t do steps…
This is also, IMHO, where the most gifted stand out from the “pedantic” scientists – in the degree to which the right brain and left brain communicate with each other and take turns. And explains why there are some folks who hit all the check boxes and pass all the (linear) tests and exams and get the degree… but just never seem to do anything really great. Because they lack the right brain “flash” to inspire the left brain to focused work. They just toil away in a straight line not quite going to the answer that a flash would light up. (And there are right brain dominant folks who just can’t do the analysis and write up / exposition stages… they see the answer but can not effectively exploit or explain it.) All, IMHO, of course.
The problem the IPCC had, ab initio, was that the fourth step “Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment”, can NEVER be done with current technology. In order to “prove” AGW, they needed to end run this difficulty. They created the idea of radiative forcing, and proceeded to claim that they could give a numerical value to this concept that was the equivalent of experimental data. It is not, and never will be. This is, fundamentally, why AGW can never be considerd to be science.
Douglas Adams is a must read for scientists. The answer can be easy (42 in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy). Figuring out the question is the tricky bit.
Did Matt Bennet just infer that Gavin Schmidt might be an ignorant fool?
Matt Bennett (21:39:25) : “And anyone who thinks AGW theory relies on computer models is an ignorant fool. “
Graeme Rodaughan (19:35:31)
Thanks for giving a link to that Michael Crichton speech. I’ve never read a more concise, clear and layman-friendly demolition of “consensus science”. It should be compulsory reading for all students. Mr Crichton will be greatly missed.
These Eureka moments have all happened thanks to people capable of doubting mainstream dogma. If the silencing of doubters were allowed in any other discipline to the extent that it happens in climate science then no progress would be made at all. Not to say that it doesn’t happen everywhere else; just not quite to the the same hysterical and irrational extent as in climate science where dissent is taken to be prima facie evidence of either industry corruption or mild insanity.
Here is the model of scientific inquiry the AGW community most closely models:
Matt Bennett (21:39:25) :
David Holliday (19:15:47) :
“Anyone who thinks a prediction based on a computer model is science is an idiot!”
And anyone who thinks AGW theory relies on computer models is an ignorant fool.
Ok. I should have left the name calling out of my comment. It was stupid and unprofessional. But I read the briefs for each of the referenced articles and they all follow the same pattern. Basically, whoever the “researcher” was ran a computer model out to a future point and made a claim based on the result. As someone who is expert in software systems development with over 28 years in the field and a large number of systems to my credit including 3D and 6D mathematical models for trajectory and orbital reconstruction I can tell you that is an incredibly flawed way to do science. Even if there is science in the theories used to create the model it doesn’t convey when running the projection.
Computer models are tools that can help us gain a better understanding of physical systems by allowing us to reconstruct what we observe in the real world. If we gain enough confidence in the models we can use them to project what might happen in a given a set of circumstances. Even then there is always computational and modeling error that accumulates the further we project. It is always a two-way street, we compare what we observe to what we model and what we model to what we observe. In that way we build confidence in the models and in our understanding of the physical systems they represent.
The climate models that currently exist have and continue to perform inadequately. They did not project the stabilizing and even cooling trend in global climate since 1998. To my knowledge they cannot even model it. They continue to put out projections that do not coincide with real world observations. Unless and until the models can be shown to be reasonable approximations of the real world systems they represent they will be useless. You can call the people who follow them and make life changing decisions based on their results whatever you like. But I would sooner put my life savings in the hands of a Las Vegas professional poker player than on the result of a prediction based on one of those models.
Graeme Rodaughan – thanks for the link to the Crichton speech. I thought it was excellent.
Wrong title “Short Circuiting The Scientific Process – A Serious Problem In The Climate Science Community”.
This is a “A Serious Problem In The ENTIRE Science Community”. Come on everyone, who are we kidding, AGW is not a specific acute disease it is a part of a chronic pattern that involves abuse in nearly every scientific field these days.
If the many good scientists do not stand against the subversion of science for religion, politics, and power by the few (already powerful) bad scientists then we are headed towards an era not unlike the Spanish Inquisition. We will live in fear and under the control of those who “know” what is best for us.
Speaking of Meehl’s paper and the meridional overturning circulation (MOC):
A few years ago we were constantly barraged with warnings that the MOC would stop and plunge the Northern Hemisphere into Chaos. This was going to happen because fresh water influx from ice sheets would basically plug the path for denser, sinking water. There was even the movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” which was exiting and had good effects, but was based on ridiculous science.
The threats of a failing MOC were promulgated by the creators of “hosing experiments.” Hosing experiments are computer models in which huge volumes of fresh water are artificially injected into the computer-modeled ocean at certain locations. Al Gore implied that Greenland’s ice was poised to provide this fresh water.
Typically, to come close to shutting down the MOC the hosing experiments would dump one Sverdrup of fresh water into the oceans at the desired location. (One Sverdrup is the same as 1,000,000 million cubic meters of freshwater per second.) This is a preposterous amount of fresh water. See this post to get an idea of just how preposterous this is.
Best Regards,
ClimateSanity
In support of Leif Svalgaard my own approach is:
1. Run experiments in a likely fruitful or interesting area or maybe something you just have the equipment for. Who really knows where ideas come from?
2. Hypothesize about or analyze the results. The methods used will depend on one’s scientific background.
3. Run more experiments.
4. Return to point 2 if necessary.
5. Check the scientific literature. Lazy I know, but there is a vast literature.
6. Do the final analysis and publish.
7. Get bored with the subject and move on to something else. This can take years.
Different people use different approaches, which is a good thing. There is no way of predicting which is best in a given field. In the end only two things are important: scientific honesty and independent replication. Cheers.
Leif Svalgaard (20:01:48) : “The last step can take decades and is sometimes only successful when your opponents die off [so plan on living for a while].”
Isn’t this concept what J. Hansen told an English reporter a few months ago about skeptics?
Konrad (03:06:56) :
I have been less than convinced by those proposing changes in angular momentum due to solar oscillation around, well I’ll just call it the SSCM, driving solar cycles. However I wonder if there may be some merit in looking at the more linear changes in acceleration of the solar mass parallel to the 26 Kps motion of the SSCM through the galaxy as a stabilizing or controlling influence on solar cycles.
The Sun is in free fall so none of these ‘mechanisms’ work, although you can find gazillions of links on the Internet about them.
That you don’t understand the solar cycle is OK, none of us scientists do either. Beware of people who say that they do 🙂
If you believe ‘consensus’ is of any scientific value, then what does that make you, sir? ‘Scientific consensus’ is a meaningless term. ‘Consensus’ deals with opinions, not facts or evidence.
BTW: I see your posted was not snipped. This site doesn’t censor dissent. Do you want to post an apology?
E.M.Smith (00:19:00) : “IMHO, the present AGW Agenda system is: 1) Ask: What question will get funding?…'”
In the profession most akin to modern climate-related science, the question that will get the most funding is:
“Hey, sailor, wanna have some fun?”
David Holliday/Matt Bennet
Good points about computer modeling but the challenge was (roughly) “AGW theory doesn’t rely on computer models” which is correct. But the idea that it will be anything other than small, benign and perhaps even beneficial does rely totally on computer models, all of which have inbuilt biased assumptions which precludes any non-catastrophic outcome from emerging. Even the famed reducing pH level of the sea is based on a model. Even the many adjustments to the raw data are based on models. As the debate is not about whether warming has occurred, it is about how much is due to man and how hot will it get, which is entirely decided by computer modeling – and flawed computer modeling at that, you’re arguing past each other.
The famous Hadley demonstration that the 20th century could not be modeled unless the human component was added, depended on them knowing the contribution from natural effects. Since that is largely unknown the whole exercise was bogus and dishonest. Yet that is the whole basis for the existence of the IPCC in the first place.
Lucy Skywalker (02:25:20) :
Another excellent story, “The Big Splash”, that clearly exemplifies Leif’s stages, is the discovery by Dr Louis A. Frank of “small comets” that are, apparently, bombarding the Earth’s atmosphere at the rate of around 20 small-house-size water comets every minute. This only amounts to a rise in sea level of one inch every 10,000 years, but over 4.5 billion years, that amounts to all the oceans.
Exciting stuff. So every viable planet in the inhabitable zone of every star gets large doses of water? How come we don’t see lakes on Mars? Not doubting you or Louis Frank Lucy. Just a bit confused by the theory.
@anna v (00:18:23) :
That’s just speculation Anna. Where is the evidence to support that?
I find it funny that you say, “It makes sense because the equations resulting from such a description work predictively.”
Because what you are saying is really, we don’t know how gravity works, but we have models that explain it accurately.
I think everyone on this site should reject gravity because its just some crummy idea based on models.
Like when David Holliday (19:15:47): says “Anyone who thinks a prediction based on a computer model is science is an idiot!”
All our “predictions” on gravity are based on models. David is just seething ignorance with respect to models and science when he makes his bold claim. I use models all the time to predict how trace elements will fractionate in a crystallizing magma chamber. Models are employed in the field of genetics, chemistry, geology, climatology, biology, ad nasuem.
All you folks have done is stigmatize the word “model” and then use that stigma that you have created as some strawman argument of why climate science is bunk (because they use models!!!)
Nonsense.
tallbloke (08:42:33) :
Lucy Skywalker (02:25:20) :
“Another excellent story, “The Big Splash”, that clearly exemplifies Leif’s stages, is the discovery by Dr Louis A. Frank of “small comets” ”
Exciting stuff. So every viable planet in the inhabitable zone of every star gets large doses of water? How come we don’t see lakes on Mars? Not doubting you or Louis Frank Lucy. Just a bit confused by the theory.
Not wanting to start an OT debate, but Lou Frank’s theory didn’t pan out after all. Later spacecraft images with better resolution show nothing of this.
Benjamin P. (09:11:09) :
All you folks have done is stigmatize the word “model” and then use that stigma that you have created as some strawman argument of why climate science is bunk (because they use models!!!)
Nonsense.
I agree completely. Models are necessary, essential, and fundamental, and almost everything we do in modern science is based on models at some place in the chain of evidence. The real issue is over-reliance on [crummy] models, but that is not the fault of the models [or the modelers], but of the media and the generally stupid portion of the populace that is taken in by the propaganda.
You are correct. AGW theory is founded on much more than just computer models…
1) CO2 does have the capability of absorbing certain bandwidths of IR radiation.
2) Mankind’s industrious activities and respiration adds more CO2 to the atmosphere than would be added if we halted all industrious activities and held our collective breath.
3) Temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels did sort of track each other for at least half of the 20th Century…Maybe even two-thirds of the time.
4) Temperatures and CO2 did seem to have had a cyclical relationship in the Upper Pleistocene.
5) It was really hot in 1998.
6) Quite a few climate “scientists” say that all other possible explanations for the warming of the late 20th century have been tested and found insufficient to explain the warming. Therefore, ala Sherlock Holmes, “After all, once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
So…AGW has a few things other than computer models to rely on.
Unfortunately, every one of the models has failed to predict the last 6 to 10 years of cooling.
Some more “Inconvenient Truths”…
There’s no evidence that CO2 has been a significant climate driver over the last 600 million years or so…Even when CO2 levels were 4000ppmv to 7000ppmv.
In the last 100 years, there have been two periods of cooling (1941-1978 and 2003-now) coupled with CO2 emissions growth that equaled or exceeded the last period of warming (1978-2003).
The Pleistocene relationship involved temperature changes that were followed by CO2 changes. Post hoc ergo propter hoc may be a logical fallacy; but if A happens before B, A might have caused B. When A happens after B, A could not have caused B.
It was really hot in 1998.
Other famous scientific consensuses: The Ptolemaic Solar System, The Geosynclinal Theory of Mountain Building, Whatever Preceded Darwin…
The AGW version of Sherlock Holmes forgot to eliminate: Clouds, albedo, that big orange ball in the sky and other cosmic & astrophysical phenomena prior the declaring that anthropogenic CO2, “no matter how improbable, must be the” true cause of climate change. Or as Lawrence Solomon wrote in The Deniers…”A climate scientist focusing on CO2 is a bit like a man who lost his keys half a block away but looks under the light post because that is where he can see.”
Benjamin P
Nobody is stigmatizing the word model. I create computer models for a living and so does D Holliday apparently. The difference is that we are modeling reasonably accurate, achievable things and we trumpet loudly to all and sundry not to believe in them until they are thoroughly validated. Modeling the climate of the world is not achievable therefore we have gross approximations which leave out swathes of known and unknown physics. Nonetheless those who use climate models, far from being mistrustful, treat the results as if it was holy scripture.
What, for example, is the point for example of using a model to determine drought in a particular region when every climate modeler will readily tell you that regional predictions are wildly inaccurate. Worse still is when they take 20 models, each one provably wrong, note that they give a similar result then claim that result to be robust. Would you do that?
Then when it comes to validation and every single dataset disagrees with the models except the one they were actually tuned to agree with, our climateers state loudly that we should trust the models rather than the data. They then use models as the basis on which to adjust the raw data and claim that “there is now no discrepency between models and data” (Santer – troposheric trends) that “there is now good agreement between models and data” (Weilicki – outgoing radiation) or that “this is more new evidence” (Thorne – radiosonde). Would you do that?
John Galt (07:33:18) :
Matt Bennett (21:39:25) :
David Holliday (19:15:47) :
“Anyone who thinks a prediction based on a computer model is science is an idiot!”
And anyone who thinks AGW theory relies on computer models is an ignorant fool.
But of course, since I completely agree with the scientific consense, (which is not all that difficult to understand if you actually give it a go and leave the politics behind), it will be my post that is snipped rather than the highly ridicule-filled rant above which calls into question the integrity of the work of many dedicted, honest people.
If you believe ‘consensus’ is of any scientific value, then what does that make you, sir? ‘Scientific consensus’ is a meaningless term. ‘Consensus’ deals with opinions, not facts or evidence.
BTW: I see your posted was not snipped. This site doesn’t censor dissent. Do you want to post an apology?
John, I agree with your statement that scientific consensus is a meaningless term from a scientific view, but for the political establishment promoting the Waxman Bill it is pure gold.
It puts them in a position where they don’t have to discuss the science any more so they can concentrate on the legal process.
This is where the scientific consensus becomes really dangerous.
That is why we have to tear the concept of concensus down and force the politicians to change their policies before it is too late.